Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
17. TOD Uluslararası Sanal Kongresi, Değişen Dünyada Ortodonti, İstanbul, Türkiye, 12 - 14 Mart 2021, ss.156
Purpose: The aim of this case report was to present the workflow of two different techniques of indirect bonding placement and to compare their accuracy.
Procedures: A 17-year-old female patient, whose chief complaint was crowding, presented with Class I molar and canine relationships and moderate crowding. The upper and lower arches were scanned with iTero Element. The digital bracket placement was performed in OrthoAnalyzer software with Appliance Designer and Indirect Bonding Studio. Once the position of the brackets established the objectives of a functional occlusion and smile esthetics, one digital guide for the maxillary dentition and one bracket transfer medium model for the mandibular dentition were printed. The next step was the fabrication of a soft thermoformed transfer tray (1.5 mm) for the mandibular setup. Indirect bonding was performed and both arches were scanned again. Then superimpositions of both arches were performed in OrthoAnalyzer to evaluate the accuracy of bracket positions between the original virtual setup and the digital models after the indirect bonding.
Findings: The digital guide showed a higher mean of accuracy (0-0.5 mm) than the transfer model. The latter showed an accuracy differentiation of up to 1.50 mm in the horizontal axis, in comparison to the original virtual setup, due to the flexibility of the material. Both techniques presented an increased accuracy in the anterior region. However, the accuracy of the transfer medium tray decreased as we move posteriorly.
Conclusion: Digital bracket placement for indirect bonding can be easily added to the daily workflow. Practitioners can benefit from the chairside efficiencies of digital indirect bonding while drastically reducing lab time. The digital guide showed increased accuracy in comparison to the transfer model tray.
Keywords: Indirect bonding, Digital Orthodontics, 3D printing